Possible new twist on 9mm vs. .45
- Thread starter peacebutready
- Start date
- Status
MCgunner
Member
Old as the hills argument. I own a pair of near identical Rugers, P85 and P90, 9mm and .45. I love the P90, better trigger/trigger transition. I just shoot it better. Plus, it's more accurate, target type accuracy. But, the last time I went to the big city, I went for the firepower. 
I said the P90 was better, didn't say the P85 was bad.
I said the P90 was better, didn't say the P85 was bad.peacebutready
Member
I know the comparison has been made for a long time. I thought using one vs. the other in terms of a percentage was a new twist.
Nothing new. Back in the 1980s Evan Marshall started compiling data and writing about the relative effectiveness of various handgun calibers and talking about "stopping power". In 1992 Evan Marshall and Edwin Sanow authored a book with the rather self-congratulatory title "Handgun Stopping Power: The Definitive Study." This purported to accurately rank various handgun calibers according to their likelihood to stop an attack with a single shot. You can find data tables from this and their later work all over the internet, for example:
http://www.chuckhawks.com/handgun_power_chart.htm
Looks very neat and encouraging. Looking at the table you would get the impression that 90% of the time or more that you hit an attacker with one round of .357 Magnum the bad guy is going down. Problem is the numbers are all based on junk science. Apart from the fact that some very smart and knowledgeable people have made a strong case that the data was "padded" to adjust the outcome, the selection criteria for the analysis was so flawed as to make the numbers meaningless in any real world situation.
In order to make the "analysis" simple and keep everything clean, Marshall and Sanow only looked at torso hits and only included cases in which the attacker was hit with a single round. Think about this. If you are being attacked with deadly force are you going to stop shooting as soon as you think you have scored a torso hit and wait to see what happens? Through this selection criteria Marshall and Sanow automatically excluded attacks that were not terminated despite multiple hits. This makes all of the handgun calibers look vastly more effective than they are in real life.
http://www.chuckhawks.com/handgun_power_chart.htm
Looks very neat and encouraging. Looking at the table you would get the impression that 90% of the time or more that you hit an attacker with one round of .357 Magnum the bad guy is going down. Problem is the numbers are all based on junk science. Apart from the fact that some very smart and knowledgeable people have made a strong case that the data was "padded" to adjust the outcome, the selection criteria for the analysis was so flawed as to make the numbers meaningless in any real world situation.
In order to make the "analysis" simple and keep everything clean, Marshall and Sanow only looked at torso hits and only included cases in which the attacker was hit with a single round. Think about this. If you are being attacked with deadly force are you going to stop shooting as soon as you think you have scored a torso hit and wait to see what happens? Through this selection criteria Marshall and Sanow automatically excluded attacks that were not terminated despite multiple hits. This makes all of the handgun calibers look vastly more effective than they are in real life.
Last edited:
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
A couple of observations. I find it interesting in self defense discussions, where rhetoric is based loosely on second or thirdhand experience but mostly theory, you hear a lot of "there's no difference". In hunting, where most rhetoric is based on actual first hand experience where the blood was spilled by the man behind the keyboard, there is a significant distinction between the .357Mag and .44Mag.
Hardball is a joke. Anyone who says it is effective for anything but plinking is highly suspect in my opinion. Having actually shot critters with the stuff, I wouldn't even use it for small game hunting.
Hardball is a joke. Anyone who says it is effective for anything but plinking is highly suspect in my opinion. Having actually shot critters with the stuff, I wouldn't even use it for small game hunting.
I don't buy into this line of thought at all. Having hunted with handguns for two decades and researched it for three decades, I find no basis for this in reality. IMHO, handgun wounds are more survivable and modern emergency medicine plays a huge role in survivability but to equate this to "handguns are ineffective" is absolute tripe. The largest game in the world has been taken with handguns. So I do believe that modern defensive handguns are quite effective against two legged critters. Yes, rifles are more effective due to greater tissue destruction but handguns are far from "ineffective".
With Ruger's new extended capacity magazine, the LC9 now can hold 11 rounds of 9mm in a platform so small and light you'll forget your carrying it.
The SR9c can carry up to 18 rounds of 9mm.
Nothing wrong with a .45, nothing at all. They usually shoot great and have punch. Still, in most cases you're looking at 7+1, and given likely outcomes in the real world, you'll want all the ammo you can carry.
The SR9c can carry up to 18 rounds of 9mm.
Nothing wrong with a .45, nothing at all. They usually shoot great and have punch. Still, in most cases you're looking at 7+1, and given likely outcomes in the real world, you'll want all the ammo you can carry.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
Interesting how people, especially people who have been on this site for a while and must have seen similar discussions, tend to "forget" a lot of basics when it comes to "effectiveness".
I'm of the opinion that many people don't "forget" so much as "continue to hold onto preconceived notions", despite evidence to the contrary.
Let's put aside "calibers" for the moment and lay out a few basics:
- The human body is an incredibly resilient construction, far more so than most people seem to understand. It can take an incredible amount of damage and still continue to function. Reliably dropping a human being dead in his/her tracks with a firearm requires a solid hit to the central nervous system of sufficient destructive capacity to either destroy the brain or sever the brain from the rest of the nervous system. Any other shot is not guaranteed to drop a human being in his/her tracks. Even a heart shot may result in the human continuing to act for some finite period of time.
- Bullet trajectory though the human body is not entirely predictable and is not 100% repeatable from shooting to shooting. Various factors affect bullet trajectory through the body: bullet mass, bullet velocity, bullet geometry, dynamic bullet geometry, tissue density, tissue differential density, obstructing bones, bone density, clothing, and so forth. Even shooting two different human beings in exactly the same spot with the same ammunition at the same trajectory will very likely NOT result in the exact same bullet trajectory through their bodies. Close, yes...but not the same, even if only by millimeters.
- To RELIABLY take down a human being requires physical trauma...and lot of it. Trauma is defined as "damage to a biological organism caused by physical harm from an external source". To that end, the most effective trauma, with respect to firearms, results from the following two things IN THE ORDER LISTED:
1. Deep penetration, reaching vital organs deep within the human body.
2. Bleeding, resulting from damage to penetrated vital organs.
A gun is primarily an instrument designed to remotely poke holes in whatever target the gun is shooting at. Think of it as a long range blunt tipped stabbing instrument, because that's what it's doing when the bullets hit the target. The bullets are not knives: They're blunt tipped hole pokers in comparison to knives. They don't slash, they don't slice, they don't cut.
Push a knife into a body and it CUTS through tissue. Push a bullet into a body and is PUSHES tissue out of the way (especially hardball, non-hollowpoint ammunition). As such, the dynamics behind tissue damage, and the resulting bleeding, are radically different between knife puncture wounds and bullet puncture wounds.
NOW...back to bullet designs and calibers.
Bullets capable of penetrating deeply are capable of reaching vital organs. Bullets which are not capable of penetrating deeply are far less likely to reach vital organs. If a bullet cannot reach vital organs, then you cannot reliably take down that aggressive bad guy.
Bullets capable of causing more tissue damage are more likely to cause greater bleeding than bullets of lesser destructive designs. Remember what CraigC said about hardball? Think about it. A hardball round will PUSH its way through elastic human tissue, which will open up before it and close up behind it. Hardball ammunition can pass completely through a body and cause very little internal bleeding as a result. This means longer times to incapacitation. A hollowpoint bullet which expands in soft tissue, however, creates not only a larger front, but a radically different geometry than a smooth hardball bullet. The resulting tissue damage is more likely to be cuts and tears along the path of the bullet, in addition to whatever increased diameter results. This increased trauma results in radically increased bleeding as a result.
Bigger bullets, while providing a truism to "bigger holes" have another factor going for them: more mass. More mass, depending on velocity and bullet design, may mean deeper penetration. However, it also means a more predictable bullet trajectory through the body. Larger masses are more difficult to deflect than smaller masses, so variations in tissue densities and impacts with bones have less of an effect on bullet trajectory.
Frank Ettin is fond of posting the following:
“So as a rule of thumb:
- More holes are better than fewer holes.
- Larger holes are better than smaller holes.
- Holes in the right places are better than holes in the wrong places.
- Holes that are deep enough are better than holes that aren't.
- There are no magic bullets.
- There are no guarantees.”
So...which is better?
The answer is, as always, "it depends".
BUT...so long as it's CAPABLE of reliably penetrating deep enough to reach internal organs, you've met the most important goal of any self-defense round. All other aspects are icing on the cake.
SIDE NOTE:
"Hydrostatic shock": This is a euphemism wherein people ascribe tissue damage which is caused by the hydraulic shock of a high velocity bullet passing through soft tissue. Essentially, they're saying that tissue is torn apart by the flight of the bullet through it.
Hydrostatic shock it a myth with respect to handguns and common rifles. These weapons are not truly capable of causing tissue damage by the method described above. Human tissue is both incredibly elastic and incredibly tough. Unless the mere flight of a solid point FMJ is capable of actually blowing human tissue apart due to hydraulic shock, then it's not causing significant tissue damage in the overall scheme of things.
With respect to "hydrostatic shock" and its effect on the nervous system...this is unreliable, at best, and may also be a myth as applied to handguns and long guns.
Note that this is not to say that higher velocity rounds are not more effective than lower velocity rounds of the same caliber.
I'm of the opinion that many people don't "forget" so much as "continue to hold onto preconceived notions", despite evidence to the contrary.
Let's put aside "calibers" for the moment and lay out a few basics:
- The human body is an incredibly resilient construction, far more so than most people seem to understand. It can take an incredible amount of damage and still continue to function. Reliably dropping a human being dead in his/her tracks with a firearm requires a solid hit to the central nervous system of sufficient destructive capacity to either destroy the brain or sever the brain from the rest of the nervous system. Any other shot is not guaranteed to drop a human being in his/her tracks. Even a heart shot may result in the human continuing to act for some finite period of time.
- Bullet trajectory though the human body is not entirely predictable and is not 100% repeatable from shooting to shooting. Various factors affect bullet trajectory through the body: bullet mass, bullet velocity, bullet geometry, dynamic bullet geometry, tissue density, tissue differential density, obstructing bones, bone density, clothing, and so forth. Even shooting two different human beings in exactly the same spot with the same ammunition at the same trajectory will very likely NOT result in the exact same bullet trajectory through their bodies. Close, yes...but not the same, even if only by millimeters.
- To RELIABLY take down a human being requires physical trauma...and lot of it. Trauma is defined as "damage to a biological organism caused by physical harm from an external source". To that end, the most effective trauma, with respect to firearms, results from the following two things IN THE ORDER LISTED:
1. Deep penetration, reaching vital organs deep within the human body.
2. Bleeding, resulting from damage to penetrated vital organs.
A gun is primarily an instrument designed to remotely poke holes in whatever target the gun is shooting at. Think of it as a long range blunt tipped stabbing instrument, because that's what it's doing when the bullets hit the target. The bullets are not knives: They're blunt tipped hole pokers in comparison to knives. They don't slash, they don't slice, they don't cut.
Push a knife into a body and it CUTS through tissue. Push a bullet into a body and is PUSHES tissue out of the way (especially hardball, non-hollowpoint ammunition). As such, the dynamics behind tissue damage, and the resulting bleeding, are radically different between knife puncture wounds and bullet puncture wounds.
NOW...back to bullet designs and calibers.
Bullets capable of penetrating deeply are capable of reaching vital organs. Bullets which are not capable of penetrating deeply are far less likely to reach vital organs. If a bullet cannot reach vital organs, then you cannot reliably take down that aggressive bad guy.
Bullets capable of causing more tissue damage are more likely to cause greater bleeding than bullets of lesser destructive designs. Remember what CraigC said about hardball? Think about it. A hardball round will PUSH its way through elastic human tissue, which will open up before it and close up behind it. Hardball ammunition can pass completely through a body and cause very little internal bleeding as a result. This means longer times to incapacitation. A hollowpoint bullet which expands in soft tissue, however, creates not only a larger front, but a radically different geometry than a smooth hardball bullet. The resulting tissue damage is more likely to be cuts and tears along the path of the bullet, in addition to whatever increased diameter results. This increased trauma results in radically increased bleeding as a result.
Bigger bullets, while providing a truism to "bigger holes" have another factor going for them: more mass. More mass, depending on velocity and bullet design, may mean deeper penetration. However, it also means a more predictable bullet trajectory through the body. Larger masses are more difficult to deflect than smaller masses, so variations in tissue densities and impacts with bones have less of an effect on bullet trajectory.
Frank Ettin is fond of posting the following:
“So as a rule of thumb:
- More holes are better than fewer holes.
- Larger holes are better than smaller holes.
- Holes in the right places are better than holes in the wrong places.
- Holes that are deep enough are better than holes that aren't.
- There are no magic bullets.
- There are no guarantees.”
So...which is better?
The answer is, as always, "it depends".
BUT...so long as it's CAPABLE of reliably penetrating deep enough to reach internal organs, you've met the most important goal of any self-defense round. All other aspects are icing on the cake.
SIDE NOTE:
"Hydrostatic shock": This is a euphemism wherein people ascribe tissue damage which is caused by the hydraulic shock of a high velocity bullet passing through soft tissue. Essentially, they're saying that tissue is torn apart by the flight of the bullet through it.
Hydrostatic shock it a myth with respect to handguns and common rifles. These weapons are not truly capable of causing tissue damage by the method described above. Human tissue is both incredibly elastic and incredibly tough. Unless the mere flight of a solid point FMJ is capable of actually blowing human tissue apart due to hydraulic shock, then it's not causing significant tissue damage in the overall scheme of things.
With respect to "hydrostatic shock" and its effect on the nervous system...this is unreliable, at best, and may also be a myth as applied to handguns and long guns.
Note that this is not to say that higher velocity rounds are not more effective than lower velocity rounds of the same caliber.
Walt Sherrill
Member
CraigC responding to "all handguns are equally ineffective" said:
Handguns are sometimes quite effective against two-legged critters, but they're not the weapon of choice on the battlefields of the world when most of those two-legged creatures meet. And, while some of the largest game in the world has been taken by handguns, the vast majority is taken by weapons with much longer barrels firing much heavier projectiles than are used in handguns. More importantly, big game can't return fire from a distance -- so the size of the target alone isn't the issue.
Long guns are more powerful, generally more accurate, do more damage, and can often do it much more quickly than a handgun. And "quickly" sometimes matters a lot. On the other hand, you can carry a handgun as you go to work, to visit family or friend, or go to the store, etc. That's much harder to do that with an AR or Model 70 slung over your shoulder and ammo on your belt.. Handguns are smaller, easier to carry, more concealable, and much more suitable for life in a world populated by people who are afraid of guns or people we don't want to know we're armed.
Using a handgun is a compromise in which we trade size, function, and firepower for convenience and concealability. It seems like a good trade for the world I live in, but it is a trade-off, nevertheless.
Ineffective? Probably not... but not nearly as effective as a long-gun, either.
.
Last edited:
It seems paradoxical. I think everyone accepts that handguns are "lethal". Many people have been done in by small caliber pistols and revolvers.
But then consider Micheal Platt who was shot 12 times before he went down in the Miami gunfight, including a penetrating wound to the right chest that collapsed his lung and put a liter and a half of blood in his chest, and only ceased fighting when a .357 Magnum fired at near point blank range into his chest contused his spinal cord.
Or Trooper Mark Coates who scored 5 torso hits at close range with his .357 Magnum on Richard Blackburn without incapacitating him, only to be killed by a .22 caliber bullet fired by Blackburn from a small pistol.
Here is a pretty amazing account of another real-world gunfight from Chicago Police Officer Bob Stasch, a veteran of 14 gunfights:
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015/02/17/interview-bob-stasch-chicago-pd-veteran-14-gunfights/
The interview is rather long but worth listening to. Toward the beginning Stasch recounts his first gunfight in which his partner was attacked by a drug dealer with a knife. His partner fired 6 shots of .45 Long Colt at point blank range into the attackers front chest without effect. In the ensuing struggle the partner of Stasch got to his backup gun, a J frame Smith snub, and fired 5 shots of Federal 158 gr 38 Sp + P hollow points into the attackers back between the shoulder blades, with no effect. Stasch then arrived and opened fire with his S&W Model 29 .44 Magnum loaded with 240 gr semi-jacket lead flat-nosed at the attacker, scoring 2 upper thorax hits at a range of 12-15 feet without effect.
Suspecting the attacker was wearing body armor (he wasn't) Stasch shifted fire to his pelvic area but hit low, scoring one hit in the thigh and finally ending the fight when his last shot shattered the attacker's kneecap and took him down. After receiving 15 close range gunshot wounds, with 13 thoracic hits delivered at point blank or close range, the attacker survived for 10 days.
Based on that experience, Stasch and his partner started training to take head shots. In his 14 gunfights Stasch experienced a one-shot stop event only one time, that at a range of 4-5 inches.
But then consider Micheal Platt who was shot 12 times before he went down in the Miami gunfight, including a penetrating wound to the right chest that collapsed his lung and put a liter and a half of blood in his chest, and only ceased fighting when a .357 Magnum fired at near point blank range into his chest contused his spinal cord.
Or Trooper Mark Coates who scored 5 torso hits at close range with his .357 Magnum on Richard Blackburn without incapacitating him, only to be killed by a .22 caliber bullet fired by Blackburn from a small pistol.
Here is a pretty amazing account of another real-world gunfight from Chicago Police Officer Bob Stasch, a veteran of 14 gunfights:
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015/02/17/interview-bob-stasch-chicago-pd-veteran-14-gunfights/
The interview is rather long but worth listening to. Toward the beginning Stasch recounts his first gunfight in which his partner was attacked by a drug dealer with a knife. His partner fired 6 shots of .45 Long Colt at point blank range into the attackers front chest without effect. In the ensuing struggle the partner of Stasch got to his backup gun, a J frame Smith snub, and fired 5 shots of Federal 158 gr 38 Sp + P hollow points into the attackers back between the shoulder blades, with no effect. Stasch then arrived and opened fire with his S&W Model 29 .44 Magnum loaded with 240 gr semi-jacket lead flat-nosed at the attacker, scoring 2 upper thorax hits at a range of 12-15 feet without effect.
Suspecting the attacker was wearing body armor (he wasn't) Stasch shifted fire to his pelvic area but hit low, scoring one hit in the thigh and finally ending the fight when his last shot shattered the attacker's kneecap and took him down. After receiving 15 close range gunshot wounds, with 13 thoracic hits delivered at point blank or close range, the attacker survived for 10 days.
Based on that experience, Stasch and his partner started training to take head shots. In his 14 gunfights Stasch experienced a one-shot stop event only one time, that at a range of 4-5 inches.
Glock Doctor
Member
Three pages of this stuff, so far, wow!
Ellifritz's, 'study' is a strange conglomeration of highly imprecise data. I've read it several times; and each time it's taken me nowhere. Then, there's this:
Define, 'caliber war'. I would suggest that this is impossible to do without taking accuracy into consideration. Consequently the expression, 'caliber war' is more general than specific; and making it more specific simply makes any possible solution to the original problem more difficult to pursue.
For example: If both projectiles hit the same spot then it stands to reason that - with similar, even though not identical, parameters - the question becomes largely moot in many of its aspects. (Because the validity of the proposition requires all targets to react in exactly the same way - Which, of course, isn't going to happen out in the real world.
So, what's my own idea of a, 'perfect answer'? This perennial argument isn't going to fade into obscurity until easy to carry and conceal handguns are finally able to provide readily controllable recoil characteristics while emitting metal projectiles of 140 + grains in mass, at muzzle velocities in excess of 1,600 FPS, that are capable of delivering a minimum of 600 FT-LB of energy to the target.
WHICH, OF COURSE, AIN'T NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN ANYWHERE INSIDE THE WORLD OF CONVENTIONALLY DESIGN, POWDER-ACTUATED, METAL BULLET FIRING DEVICES. SO, .......
Ellifritz's, 'study' is a strange conglomeration of highly imprecise data. I've read it several times; and each time it's taken me nowhere. Then, there's this:
Define, 'caliber war'. I would suggest that this is impossible to do without taking accuracy into consideration. Consequently the expression, 'caliber war' is more general than specific; and making it more specific simply makes any possible solution to the original problem more difficult to pursue.
For example: If both projectiles hit the same spot then it stands to reason that - with similar, even though not identical, parameters - the question becomes largely moot in many of its aspects. (Because the validity of the proposition requires all targets to react in exactly the same way - Which, of course, isn't going to happen out in the real world.
So, what's my own idea of a, 'perfect answer'? This perennial argument isn't going to fade into obscurity until easy to carry and conceal handguns are finally able to provide readily controllable recoil characteristics while emitting metal projectiles of 140 + grains in mass, at muzzle velocities in excess of 1,600 FPS, that are capable of delivering a minimum of 600 FT-LB of energy to the target.
WHICH, OF COURSE, AIN'T NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN ANYWHERE INSIDE THE WORLD OF CONVENTIONALLY DESIGN, POWDER-ACTUATED, METAL BULLET FIRING DEVICES. SO, .......
Last edited:
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
Yeah, I heard him say that in a couple of classes. Funny thing is, people do it all the time. Heck, sometimes they win without even firing the gun, LOL.
buckhorn_cortez
Member
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2010
- Messages
- 532
1. The 10% quote came from Ken Hackathorn - not just "some guy." If you don't know who he is or what he's done - then take the time to search the Internet before you start bashing what he's said. He's forgotten more about guns, gun fighting, training, etc. than most people will ever know.
2. For everyone who knows more about shooting than Ken Hackathorn - you might take the time to look up his exact quote before jumping off the cliff over shot placement, knockdown power - and all of the other things YOU THINK were said - but, in fact, were NOT.
Ken's exact words -
What he's saying is that, given a choice, he prefers the .45 caliber gun, but shot placement is far more important than caliber.
2. For everyone who knows more about shooting than Ken Hackathorn - you might take the time to look up his exact quote before jumping off the cliff over shot placement, knockdown power - and all of the other things YOU THINK were said - but, in fact, were NOT.
Ken's exact words -
What he's saying is that, given a choice, he prefers the .45 caliber gun, but shot placement is far more important than caliber.
Last edited:
Walt Sherrill
Member
Ken Hackathorn about why some shoot .45s said:
He's certainly more experienced than I am, but my experience is quite the opposite -- As I see it, while many folks may buy a .45, relatively few of them go on to PACK that .45... and those who do (pack the .45) seem to be among the more experienced and competent shooters -- NOT the folks who seem to be less so.
I think a lot of folks DO buy .45s, but either quickly sell them or stick them in the gun safe... I agree with Hackathorn that while caliber is important, proficiency with the gun used is far more important.
.
Last edited:
I'd say the 10% advantage is generous at best.
Part of the reason is that generations of shooters have simply assumed that the foreign 9mm round was similar to the USA made 38 Special. And with some of the anemic USA made 9mm loads from years ago may have been close to the truth. When compared to 38 Special the 45 and 357 magnum is a step up. But the truth is that European 9mm loads have always been right on the heels of 357 mag loads with lighter bullets. In fact once you drop below a 4" barrel 9mm loads beat 357 magnum with lighter bullets. The 40 S&W will do anything a 4" 357 will do with heavier bullets, and all of them beat 45 ACP by a slight margin with any bullet weight.
Despite all mythology involving the 45 ACP when you look at the facts of over 100 years worth of testing and research the 45 and 9mm are practically a dead even tie and always have been.
Part of the reason is that generations of shooters have simply assumed that the foreign 9mm round was similar to the USA made 38 Special. And with some of the anemic USA made 9mm loads from years ago may have been close to the truth. When compared to 38 Special the 45 and 357 magnum is a step up. But the truth is that European 9mm loads have always been right on the heels of 357 mag loads with lighter bullets. In fact once you drop below a 4" barrel 9mm loads beat 357 magnum with lighter bullets. The 40 S&W will do anything a 4" 357 will do with heavier bullets, and all of them beat 45 ACP by a slight margin with any bullet weight.
Despite all mythology involving the 45 ACP when you look at the facts of over 100 years worth of testing and research the 45 and 9mm are practically a dead even tie and always have been.
I don't currently own a .45, just 2 9mms so this isn't bias. However, there is definitely a difference in terminal performance of a .5-.6" dia. hole vs. a .7-.75" dia. hole. The latter is going to result in much more tissue damage and blood loss based on the increased volume.
Just like the water flow from a .5" hose vs. a .75" hose, there is a big difference.
The problem is, given how human anatomy works, that a .75" hole through the heart may mean they collapse in 10 seconds and a .55" hole may mean they collapse in 20 seconds. Either way, witnesses report the perp absorbing multiple rounds to no effect and continuing to fight with either caliber.
Edit: I'm talking about typical high end HP expansion #s for the diameters listed above.
Last edited:
Bee Man
Member
Both are fine rounds and can be lethal, but are both equally efficient? Fluid Dynamics teaches if you double the size of a hole you quadruple the flow rate. So it would seem to show the person with the larger hole would expire sooner and shoot back less with the same wound. If I needed to make a rushed shot at a mountain lion or bear I think I’d go big. Just saying...
Walt Sherrill
Member
Bee Man said:
Your logic there is impeccable, but that wound must still be in the right place for it to really matter. And while you're waiting for the bad guy to bleed out, he may be doing exactly the same thing, for you.
The audio upload of the interview with the Chicago Cop showed us that bigger holes don't always work as well as expected: that bad guy took about 15 hits of .44 magnum, .357 magnum and .38 Special - many of them center mass -- and the bad guy kept on coming. (He died much later!) Had he been carrying a gun (or guns) instead of a knife, we might never have heard that story. Fluid dynamics, while a factor, didn't seem to play too big a role in that LEO shootout.
The same LEO's whole training regimine evolved over the years so that he now goes only for head shots! Making the bad guy bleed out is not HIS objective.
That Chicago PD LEO is proficient with a P220 so he carries .45s on duty (with a backup gun of a smaller caliber); but he only carries a P228 9mm when off duty. Maybe he likes extra rounds when he knows that backup is not close at hand?
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
Had a class from him as well. Fun guy, very pragmatic. Interesting quote, but it has a serious flaw...
So he believes this, not that he has any sort of statistical analysis or breakdown to justify it, but he assigns a somewhat ambiguous number "about 10%" to it without actually doing the math. Based on several classes in statistical analysis and performing the same sort of evaluation, I would say that his 10% is about 95% made up. That isn't to say there is deceit or wrong doing, but his number is nothing more than a guess. We have no idea what biases he had in coming up with such a number, where his data came from, or how he evaluated it.
He is right. Ten percent isn't much when it is a made up number. You can just say that you believe something is better by a "about X%) and then turn around and use X% as a real number.
Yeah, Ken Hackathorn has a lot of gun handling experience and teaches a helluva class, but it is important for folks to understand when information is actually factual and when it is just a fabricated number that isn't based on real statistical analysis, but from the realm of "belief." His 10% could be 2% or 18%. Heck, he could even be wrong and the .45 may not actually perform better, but we don't know because his information isn't based on any crunched numbers and certainly nothing we can check.
And just for the record, I carry a .45.
Where did you see this about an 11 round LC9 magazine?
True, the SR9c can hold 17 +1 with the extended magazine.
45 has 10% more stopping power. But I can shoot 9mm 7% faster, and 5% more accurately. Based on ammo cost I can train 50% more, forecasting my improvement ratio to be xx% higher year over year. Based on my math I am currenty 2% safer with 9mm and that number is growing annually......JOKING!! Clearly im not a statistics guy...As stated above pick one and train with it, they all have there pros/cons, and individual unforseen circumstances will nulify any percentage from these stats that give you a perceived advantage from your caliber choice. The reality is you cannot foresee when/if you will be in a defense situation and when/if it happens will you be best of with, higher power, more rounds, less muzzle flip, less flash at night, etc, etc......
tipoc
Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,563
The caliber is always less important than the shooter. Ellifitz's "study" like many others is too full of holes to be a guide.
It's the shooter that matters and the choices they make.
You choose the most powerful round that you can shoot well, with the best bullet matched to the task, from a gun that you can shoot well and match them to the task at hand.
If it's hunting, it's hunting. You mate those things to the requirements of hunting.
If it's self defense then being able to put the shots where you want them and need them to go quickly and accurately plays a larger role than it does in hunting. You have to be able to control your shots.
The shooter who can shoot a more powerful round at speed with accuracy and power from a full sized service gun should stick with that. But if they are carrying a small light weight piece matched for concealed carry the odds they can handle the more powerful round with the same speed and accuracy declines. So you pick for that task the most powerful gun you can handle well from a gun mated to the task with the best bullet for that task that you can find.
tipoc
It's the shooter that matters and the choices they make.
You choose the most powerful round that you can shoot well, with the best bullet matched to the task, from a gun that you can shoot well and match them to the task at hand.
If it's hunting, it's hunting. You mate those things to the requirements of hunting.
If it's self defense then being able to put the shots where you want them and need them to go quickly and accurately plays a larger role than it does in hunting. You have to be able to control your shots.
The shooter who can shoot a more powerful round at speed with accuracy and power from a full sized service gun should stick with that. But if they are carrying a small light weight piece matched for concealed carry the odds they can handle the more powerful round with the same speed and accuracy declines. So you pick for that task the most powerful gun you can handle well from a gun mated to the task with the best bullet for that task that you can find.
tipoc
1911 guy
Member
If we were having this conversation 20 years ago, I'd say to avoid 9mm. However, bullet construction has come so far in the last two decades that they are, for all practical purposes, on even footing. In my opinion, it comes down to finding a handgun that fits you. Make a good jacketed hollow point bullet go where you want it to go and that's 75% of the battle. The other 25 percent is blind luck because bullets do weird things in living tissue.
- Status
